click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
. former u.n. ambassador john bolton joins us. nice to see. could this have been prevented? >> absolutely. this is a reflection of the obama administration to take this issue seriously. it was demonstrated last october when the palestinian authority was made a member of the u.n. scientific and cultural organization, when it never should have been. palestine is not a state. that's a fact. when the u.n. engages in this kind of activity it shows a real lack of administration commitment to stop it from happening. >> greta: what does it mean as a practical purpose? >> it has a couple of practical implications. the first is the general assembly having decided that palestine is in a state, it's now in a position to go to every other u.n. specialized agency and get admission, which will trigger off a cutoff of u.n. funding, number one. number two, i think there will be a reaction in congress. senator orrin hatch has said he'll introduce legislation to cut off funding for the u.n. itself. finally the palestinians will try to accede to a number of treaties only open for states like the internationa
today's meeting? ambassador john bolton is here. your thoughts on the meeting with ambassador rice on capitol hill. >> from susan rice's point of view, this is a disaster, an opportunity to try to draw the sting out of the opposition that had been expressed by senator mccain and the others. obviously went in the opposite direction, when have you all three senator who is participated in the meeting, coming out after saying they have more questions now than they did before. this was a bad meeting, no doubt about it. i think part of the problem here is the continued focus by the white house, by susan rice, by people looking at it, on these so-called talk points that somebody provided to her. i will just put it this way, based on my own experience in government, nobody who's truly competent reads talking points for any purpose. if you are good enough to be a senior american official, you ought to be able to use your own words. i am not saying you make up policy. you obviously follow policy, as set by the president. but the notion that you can be a cabinet-level official and be given ta
john bolton who has worked for years to make sure this doesn't happen on what it all means, next. jon: republicans say they are willing to show some willingness to come proceed myself on taxes in a grand bargain to help the nation avoid falling off the fiscal cliff. senate democrats, though, are refusing to negotiate taking a hard line against cuts to entitlements like medicare and social security benefits. so where does this all leave us? we heard the president weighing in on it moments ago. let's talk about it with bob cusack, managing editor of the hill. is either side bulging or blinking right now, bob? >> well, if any side is drinking right now it's the republican side because they are trying to wrestle with what they should give up on on taxes, whether that is increasing tax rates or withholdings. democrats, fresh off the election, using that political capital, they are seeing more and more is off the table. in 2011 the president said everything should be on the table, that included entitlement reform. now democrats are saying, social security we shouldn't mess with, these what
works. meanwhile, john bolton, who was our union i wouldn't know ambassador to -- united nations ambassador, he said what he's seen so far, this is not good. >> i'll just put it this way based on my own experience in government, nobody who is truly competent reads talking points for any purpose. if you're good enough to be a senior american official, you ought to be able to use your own words. i'm not saying you make up policy. you obviously follow policy as set by the president. but the notion that you can be a cabinet level official and be given talking points that you simply parrot without further question is mind boggling. >> brian: i'll add this, if you want to know if ambassador rice is capable of being the secretary of state, you have to look at her background. stanford, great schools, right? oxford, i heard is a very good school. not a community college. so i heard that's pretty impresssive. she worked for candidates kerry and dukakis, but she was national security advisor with bill clinton, at which time bill clinton made ace hug best mistake, allowing the genocide to go
that out. but again, that has to be pursued. megyn: joining me now, ambassador john bolton. former u.s. ambassador to the united nations. that full interview is going to air today at 2:30 p.m. your thoughts to peter king's statements right there? >> i think he has put his finger on the key issue. i think that general petraeus and his testimony today has put this right on the doorstep. i don't think there's any doubt. at least there is a working hypothesis. maybe not a firm conclusion, that the only entity in washington that believes in the demonstration was the white house. general david petraeus said that he knew within 24 hours that it was a terrorist attack. he said that he was trying to convey that position in his congressional testimony of september 14. he apparently didn't. but the key point is he thought that he was being consistent. somehow between then and when white house spokesman jay carney spoke, susan rice goes on television on the 16, it goes 180 degrees away from the notion of a terrorist attack towards the demonstration. in an interagency practice, let me just say th
the place, judges, republicans, who have been on hold. now when lindsey graham mentioned was john bolton and that was a clear warning because john bolton, as you know, was not confirmed for u.n. a.m. b ambassador and was a recess appointee. there's no way the president is going to nominate as secretary of state as a recess appointee. you just cannot with credibility lead diplomacy around the world. this week we'll have a debate -- tomorrow there's a debate in the general assembly of the united nations on palestinian state hood. it is symbolic but now france is going along with the rest of the general assembly. the united states and israel and a few others will stand alone against this symbolic gesture. it's considered a very important move by the weakened fatah branch of the palestinians after what's happened with fgaza and hamas. real things at stake here. and susan rice has to stand up there and represent the united states and there's got to be a lot of weakening of her position. >>> coming up next, "the last lion." a definitive biography on winston churchill 20 years in the making was
on in the middle east. >> absolutely. the group i was with was john bolton and it was quite a group of the we were talking about the iranian group that wants to see regime change in iran. they've just been delisted. and the reality is that's an option that we should be talking about. there are three option. option number one is negotiate and do some kind of detante like question with the soviets. two, is military attacks. both of those are bad. the third is, let's see if you can get a different regime. after all, we have a different regime in egypt. we have a new one in libya. we're going to have a new one in syria. a lot of questions about what's going to replace them. in iran, you probably could replace them with a pretty solid pro-western government if you did the right things. >> brian: kind of encouraged that president obama said he does have words of support for israel. >> they're getting bombed every day. and it turns out this has been going on for some time of the two, three a day now for almost a year. >> brian: what would the fallout be if they send 75,000-plus troops into gaza on the gr
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)